Definitive Report - Report No 12, 1954

Case No 91 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 01-NOV-53 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

241. The complainant alleges that Mr. E. Huntley, a postal official in British Guiana, was relieved of his duties and put on half pay because he has " been strongly in favour of trade union representation for the interests of postal workers in British Guiana ". The pretext for the punishment was that he took part in a demonstration during the visit of H.R.H. the Princess Royal to British Guiana.

242. The Government states that no action was taken against Mr. Huntley because of his trade union activities, but that he took a leading part in a political demonstration against the visit of H.R.H. the Princess Royal. He was charged departmentally, with a view to dismissal, for conduct as a government servant prejudicial to discipline and good order calculated to bring his office into disrepute and the Public Service into contempt. Being charged in accordance with the procedure laid down in the regulations governing the employment of government servants in British Guiana, he was provisionally suspended on half pay. In his reply he did not deny the facts but defended his action on the ground that it was meant to apprise the public of certain truths. An inquiry was conducted by a judge and he was found guilty of the charge. He was severely reprimanded and then reinstated.

243. The complainant alleges that action was taken against Mr. Huntley because he had been " strongly in favour " of trade union representation for postal workers. No further evidence is adduced to support this charge, which the Government categorically denies.
244. The Committee notes that Mr. Huntley was in fact found guilty, following an inquiry conducted by a judge and on the basis of his participation in a political demonstration, of conduct as a government servant prejudicial to discipline and good order calculated to bring his office into disrepute and the Public Service into contempt. The Government states that Mr. Huntley did not deny his part in the demonstration but declared that his aim was to " apprise the public of certain truths ". Finally, he was reinstated after a severe reprimand.
245. The Committee considers that the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence to show that trade union rights were infringed but that action was in fact taken against Mr. Huntley because of his taking part, while a public servant, in a political demonstration, in such a manner as to contravene the regulations governing his employment, the ensuing inquiry by a judge resulting in a verdict of guilty on this charge.

246. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to dismiss the case as frivolous.